One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Graham]

RJ,

I was only stating, with no drawing of any inference on my part, that Alec Voller was content that the Diary ink was not Diamine. I would suggest that his opinion is worth considering - after all, I suppose you yourself can tell a Ford from a Volkswagen? As far as I am aware, Voller did not go on to express an opinion as to the date the Diary was written; his opinion merely contradicted Barrett's assertion that he, Barrett, used Diamine ink to write the damn thing. I don't think that Voller is 'the darling' of the Diary defenders - all he did was to express an expert opinion when asked to do so.

As I said on another thread, for a long time I've thought that Harris was as close to the truth of the Diary's origin as anyone ever has been.

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

I try not to get involved with diary debate because im just not that committed to it but it always surprises me that its always diary defenders who are supposedly ‘biased’ whilst those who believe its a forgery (the definite majority) are apparently completely free from it. Im afraid thats not always what i see as an outsider to the debate. Im not tarring all with the same brush here but if i ever read of anything approaching vehemence in the debate it apoears to usually come from the ‘anti’ side.

Voller = bad scientist

Scientists (whose work showed against the diary) = good scientist

Mike Barrett = unscrupulous liar and forger

Mike Barrett (when saying something detrimental to the diary) = honest.

I just dont understand the vehemence. Why does it anger people that a few believe the diary to be genuine? Or that some might think it a forgery but not by Mike? A while ago someone wrote a ludicrous book claiming that the Ripper was a hero of mine Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was angry at the book at first but that was it. I know its false but i dont spend my life trying to prove it to every last person. Im just interested to know why the diary arouses such passions?

Just my opinion

[Abby Normal]

I try not to get involved with diary debate because im just not that committed to it but it always surprises me that its always diary defenders who are supposedly ‘biased’ whilst those who believe its a forgery (the definite majority) are apparently completely free from it. Im afraid thats not always what i see as an outsider to the debate. Im not tarring all with the same brush here but if i ever read of anything approaching vehemence in the debate it apoears to usually come from the ‘anti’ side.

Voller = bad scientist

Scientists (whose work showed against the diary) = good scientist

Mike Barrett = unscrupulous liar and forger

Mike Barrett (when saying something detrimental to the diary) = honest.

I just dont understand the vehemence. Why does it anger people that a few believe the diary to be genuine? Or that some might think it a forgery but not by Mike? A while ago someone wrote a ludicrous book claiming that the Ripper was a hero of mine Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was angry at the book at first but that was it. I know its false but i dont spend my life trying to prove it to every last person. Im just interested to know why the diary arouses such passions?

Just my opinion

Because the truth is important as is the passionate defense of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because the truth is important as is the passionate defense of it.

I couldnt agree more Abby and i respect anyone who believes that. I suppose that part of my point is that, for example, no one gets angry that a few people believe that Sickert was the ripper, or Lewis Carroll or Francis Thompson. No suspect arouses such passion as Maybrick (through the diary of course.) Of course more people believe the diary to be genuine than people believe that Jack was Lewis Carroll but the point stands. It appears that the vast majority believe the diary to be a forgery (and overwhelmingly a modern one) so you would think that people would pretty much think ‘job done.’
Im not for a minute suggesting that debate should stop (its the purpose of the Forum) but id just ask: is anyone that believes the diary to be genuine either stupid or biased (or just genuinely mistaken?) Or is there an outside/minute chance that they might be right? Im just intrigued by why this supposedly ‘amateurish forgery’ still arouses such passions, and yes vehemence, 27 years later?

[Graham]

Did we ever get to see Keith Skinner's 'proof' that the Diary was abstracted from Battlecrease?

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Or is there an outside/minute chance that [those who believe it genuine] might be right?

I'd maintain that this possibility is entirely ruled out by the diary's use of anachronistic phrases; there is certainly one, and IMHO two or three more.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry to see that your account was hacked yesterday by a sulky, petulant child, Sam Flynn, hope you've managed to regain control now.

Sulky, petulant adult, please. Am now fully recovered, thank you, David.

[caz]

That's simply not true though Herlock. There were many other possible uses for bone black, including, as I have said, a supposed cure for indigestion, so it's presence is not in any way a pointer towards the Diary having been written by a drug user, nor does it show that the forger was "lucky" at all. To me it just shows that supporters of the Diary are drawing tenuous connections here.

Urgh, that was a horrible misuse of the poor old apostrophe.

But it does show David is only human after all, and not above making basic errors of English - even when the writing is meant for public consumption.

At least we can eliminate David from being the hoaxer. Our diarist hardly uses the humble apostrophe at all - not even of the greengrocer variety. Oddly, I can find no contractions in there, which may be how they imagined people wrote in the 1880s, even in their own private diaries. It can't be fear of making basic apostrophe errors because on pages 8 and 19 of the diary "Sir Jim" displays a glimmer of uncharacteristic knowledge and respect by placing one correctly in St. James's, even while he's thinking of burning it to the ground.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

It can't be fear of making basic apostrophe errors because on pages 8 and 19 of the diary "Sir Jim" displays a glimmer of uncharacteristic knowledge and respect by placing one correctly in St. James's

One of two appearances in the diary, both times with the apostrophe correctly used. Might this have been because the hoaxer(s) saw "St James's" actually printed in books/articles about the Maybricks' wedding?

Alternatively, "St Jamess" looks daft, so there's perhaps a clue inherent in the word itself that an apostrophe before the second "s" would be required.

[caz]

Well, actually, I would have thought it would be surprising that a drug addict is in possession of an antidote for the drug they are taking because they are presumably taking the drug for pleasure to make them feel better and I would have expected such an antidote to be held by a medical person for use when someone has actually been poisoned.

James was taking all sorts of stuff for what ailed him, and if he had a sexually transmitted disease, or even suspected he might have one, and thought arsenic could treat or cure it, might he not have been taking it for that reason, rather than for pleasure? If that was the case, it might have made him feel worse, not better, the more he took, in which case having something handy that he'd heard was an antidote would have made sense.

None of this had to have a sound medical basis if he was self diagnosing and experimenting without or against his doctor's advice.

A school friend of mine was, as Jim was said to be, a walking chemist. I remember her one year on holiday abroad, in the late 1960s, taking Ex Lax to make her go and Enterovioform to make her stop going in case the Ex Lax worked too well.

All I took was aspirin for a monster hangover from my first experiments with alcohol - Cuba Libre to be exact.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

One of two appearances in the diary, both times with the apostrophe correctly used. Might this have been because the hoaxer(s) saw "St James's" actually printed in books/articles about the Maybricks' wedding?

Alternatively, "St Jamess" looks daft, so there's perhaps a clue inherent in the word itself that an apostrophe before the second "s" would be required.

I've never seen it spelled St Jamess before, Gareth, but I've often seen it spelled St James', and less often St Jameses. It's quite a rare treat for me to see it spelled St. James's.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I've never seen it spelled St Jamess before, Gareth

Indeed, Caz - like I say, there's an inbuilt clue there that the "ss" should be split up.

I've often seen it spelled St James'

I'd be of the St James' persuasion, too.

It's quite a rare treat for me to see it spelled St. James's.

Indeed, which is why I suggested that it might thus have appeared in print among the writer's research materials.

[Sam Flynn]

A school friend of mine was, as Jim was said to be, a walking chemist. I remember her one year on holiday abroad, in the late 1960s, taking Ex Lax to make her go

My grandmother used to call laxatives "hurry-up medicine".

[caz]

Yup. Diamine Manuscript ink from Bluecoat Chambers Art Shop. Later subjected to experiments by Nick Warren and Melvin Harris who found it a credible claim.

But whose claim? Was it not the man in the shop who first suggested Diamine as a possibility? It was the claim by Warren and Harris which turned out not to be credible. See page 34 of Robert Smith's 25 Years... for more info. The diary was clearly not written using the Diamine Manuscript ink experimented with by Warren and Harris.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd maintain that this possibility is entirely ruled out by the diary's use of anachronistic phrases; there is certainly one, and IMHO two or three more.

And no one should have any issue with that opinion Gareth